Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

make your list be able to beat anything, but realize that you won't, and don't need to, beat everything.


give yourself a varity of options when you build your list and, when you get to the table, study your opponents list and figure out the most efficient way to pick it apart with what you gave yourself.

give each unit a target. also give them a secondary target in the event that their primary target either, Gets Reserved/outflanked, is killed by another of your units that also targeted it...


have ay least a vague idea of your movement strategy. where will your units move in each turn. where will they go/do if they can't do their alloted action.

Dashofpepper wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:
I do agree with this. Except the last line. You can never beat everything. Ever. There are too many options and too much parody in 40k for that to ever be the case.

In my personal case, I will never have the models for a tournament anyway. So I have no need to beat anyone other than my local group. I can't even go to a FLGS, since they play on Sundays, and I am eternally busy on that day (with my life outside Warhammer, see).

Yes...you *CAN* beat everything. You can't win every battle in every possible scenario (you got second against an alpha strike list, deployed on the board and got massacred, or failed your reserve rolls, or deep-struck mishaped 3/4 of your army) - but you a balanced list CAN defeat any other list with good generalship.

Perhaps I mis-interpreted. You can't ALWAYS win is what I meant to say. You're gonna lose sometime, no matter the list. Does the potential for a list to beat any other list exist? Sure. Can 10 guardsmen take down 10 Marines in assault? It's possible. Unlikely, but possible. And that's what lists also come down to. Lists have better or worse chances against other lists, and a balanced list gives you, over the course of many games, the best overall chance of winning all of those games. But the best list can still fall to the worst list for generalship, terrain, and the luck of the dice. A 500 point Necron list can beat a 2,000 Marine list with ridiculous luck. I wouldn't bet on them winning, but it's possible. So to discuss such possibilities is pointless, and instead we can only talk about the things that improve our chances of winning over the long run. That's all we can do - is set ourselves up to win as best we can and pray the dice gods are with us this day. To quote one Captain aboard the "Basroil" assault ship - "In battle, you have to take your luck".

Dashofpepper wrote:If you've never been to a tournament (which you say), how can you have any concept of what can beat what on the serious 40k level?

Did I say I did? I certainly don't recall that. I remember starting an opinion of the current state of Warhammer 40K armies, which would obviously imply that this is only in my own experience, within the games I play (my local group only, as I said), and the opinions of others whose thoughts I value. Having never been in a tournament, my opinion would not include tournament games.

And while I don't think there was anything malicious in that statement, I read it as condescending my first time through (that last line at me anyway), but I know you're kind free-loving and "I don't give a damn if people don't like what I have to say" attitude, which I like. I don't think I'm too different, honestly. But people might read it the wrong way. Just as a friendly heads-up.

Yeah, I didn't mean every time - but a Balanced list has a better chance of beating any given opponent than a 'Rock' army.

The most I meta-game is choosing the right units for the right job. I don't mathammer, I simply try to attack their weakness once the models are placed. Flank not have enough units? Pour my gaunts down with some synapse and try and outflank them. Yes, I am guilty of picking units against a specific race, I.E. Power Weapons against marines (or TONS of attacks). AT against guardsmen...etc...

Plus I always try to throw in one unit I don't/hardly use to test him. Thats how I came to love raveners and gargoyles

If he is playing at some competitive stores he probably has a good idea what works and what doesn't. Of course that's not a substitute for national tourney level experience but I've met some solid players that never played outside their hometown.

Footsloggin wrote: Yes, I am guilty of picking units against a specific race, I.E. Power Weapons against marines (or TONS of attacks). AT against guardsmen...etc...

That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.

TheRedArmy wrote:
Did I say I did?

You said, "I will never have the models for a tournament...."

Which seems to be the same as saying, "I do not play in tournaments." Is it not? =p

To wit, my point was to disagree with your statement about what can beat what, compare the difference in our platform for dispensing such opinions about army performance (tournament player vs. non tournament player) to leverage my own opinion as more weighty. Nothing personal or condescending towards you personally, just trying to establish that my disagreement with your opinion was worth more.

Isn't that how internet arguments work?

That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.[/quote

Wow so much fail in that quote that it hurts my head.

Why should someone take units that simply have no or little effect against certain armies? I play against SM 90% of the time so I take as many power weapons and ap3 as I can cram in. Its just common sense if I was at a tourney I would do the same just because most armies fit into the elite/small model count type and horde armies seem to be rare.

Dashofpepper wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:
Did I say I did?

You said, "I will never have the models for a tournament...."

Which seems to be the same as saying, "I do not play in tournaments." Is it not? =p

To wit, my point was to disagree with your statement about what can beat what, compare the difference in our platform for dispensing such opinions about army performance (tournament player vs. non tournament player) to leverage my own opinion as more weighty. Nothing personal or condescending towards you personally, just trying to establish that my disagreement with your opinion was worth more.

Isn't that how internet arguments work?

Probably. And I have no doubt that in tournament debates, your opinions hold more water. But who's to say in less competitive environments that my opinion is less correct? I certainly can't say either way. I doubt anyone can. In tournaments, it depends on the most effective use of...well, everything. In less areas, like my own group, it depends on playing the people you face each week in the best way possible. Not necessarily the best things overall.

Elessar wrote:

Footsloggin wrote: Yes, I am guilty of picking units against a specific race, I.E. Power Weapons against marines (or TONS of attacks). AT against guardsmen...etc...

That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.

Then again, me and my friends only play tailored lists against one another, if we're being competitive. I don't usually go to my local game store for...well reasons...
I don't participate in tournaments...EVER.

Most of the time however, the six of us play "oddball" lists, I.E., the 2500 point list I placed in the army list section, where I run an entire Deepstriking force, aside from those who cannot deep strike, I believe I have about 10 deep striking units in that list total. Maybe 9...

Overall, my 'nids have trouble cracking my friend's Space Wolves, as they have wrecked me time and time again. So, I decided to throw in warriors with lash-whips and boneswords, in nine-"man" units, and, they worked, rather effectively... Though it may have something to do with the Prime attached to the squad. "tailoring" lists is not uncommon amongst us. And everytime one pops up, we continue adapting our lists one after another, until the lists are highly abstract and varying.

Jubear wrote:That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.

Wow so much fail in that quote that it hurts my head.

Why should someone take units that simply have no or little effect against certain armies? I play against SM 90% of the time so I take as many power weapons and ap3 as I can cram in. Its just common sense if I was at a tourney I would do the same just because most armies fit into the elite/small model count type and horde armies seem to be rare.

Jubear wrote:

That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.

Why should someone take units that simply have no or little effect against certain armies? I play against SM 90% of the time so I take as many power weapons and ap3 as I can cram in. Its just common sense if I was at a tourney I would do the same just because most armies fit into the elite/small model count type and horde armies seem to be rare.

I agree with this. If you know what you're fighting before hand you're slowed not to tool up to defeat that. real armies do it in real war. besides you have all these guns that are specifically made to kill certain kinds of targets. if you know what you're up against, then taking out that kind of gun is really.... the whole point of that gun. you see a phillips head screw, you get a phillips head screw driver. thats what they're made for. it's not cheating at all. it's being sensible.

its a tactic that is easy for the opponent to defeat. bring different armies on different days. if you play guard and marines how the hell can they tailor against you when they dont know which you're playing?

Jihallah wrote:

Jubear wrote:That, mon ami, is tailoring - and, in my book, tailoring is a form of cheating.

Wow so much fail in that quote that it hurts my head.

Why should someone take units that simply have no or little effect against certain armies? I play against SM 90% of the time so I take as many power weapons and ap3 as I can cram in. Its just common sense if I was at a tourney I would do the same just because most armies fit into the elite/small model count type and horde armies seem to be rare.

So much fail in this quote more like it. If 10 of you rock up to a tournament with your power weapons and AP3, and you come up against one guyy with a inf heavy guard force or da boyz etc, that one person will probably slap you all down on the virtue that you all tailored your lists to fight against small elite armies. Now if your local meta is 90% SM, you've got a good reason to play with lots of power weaps and ap3 etc, but if a bunch of people in your gaming community start different, non-meq armies, you will find very quickly that your list will need some changing.

I agree with Dash. Everyone is just trying to pick his method apart.

which is a pretty silly thing to do to the 2nd best 40k player in the country.

Lol, argumentum ad verecundiam much?

Grey Templar wrote:which is a pretty silly thing to do to the 2nd best 40k player in the country.

Which is a pretty silly thing to say, being it a fallacy of authority and all.

Being good at 40k =/= being always right in 40k.

EDIT: Ninja'ed

Dash is the 2nd best player in the country? why do you say that?

He's referring to RankingsHQ, which accumulates all data for GTs for each country and ranks players based on their performance - I used to be in the #1 spot, but have fallen to #3; I haven't been to enough two day, 5+ game events with 100+ people to merit a higher score (which will be rectified in this coming year's traveling schedule in terms of which events I attend and where I choose to go).

However, there *IS* exciting news around the corner for competitive 40k gamers around the country, but I don't want to ruin the surprise yet. =D

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dash is the 2nd best player in the country? why do you say that?

Based on a ranking, which does not feature a number of players who are better than him.
Saying someone is the best, 2nd best, or 3rd best based on a ranking like this is just silly. But the ranking is definitely a good way to show the level of enthusiasm of each player in the game.

Dashofpepper wrote:He's referring to RankingsHQ, which accumulates all data for GTs for each country and ranks players based on their performance - I used to be in the #1 spot, but have fallen to #3; I haven't been to enough two day, 5+ game events with 100+ people to merit a higher score (which will be rectified in this coming year's traveling schedule in terms of which events I attend and where I choose to go).

However, there *IS* exciting news around the corner for competitive 40k gamers around the country, but I don't want to ruin the surprise yet. =D

wow. mad props man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

striderx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dash is the 2nd best player in the country? why do you say that?

Based on a ranking, which does not feature a number of players who are better than him.
Saying someone is the best, 2nd best, or 3rd best based on a ranking like this is just silly. But the ranking is definitely a good way to show the level of enthusiasm of each player in the game.

well any ranking system has its limitations but its still an accomplishment. I think that if someone has a high national ranking then it's worthwhile to listen to what they have to say. not that they can't be wrong or anything like that of course.

I'm a Tyranid player that has been playing for a little over a year now. Here's my approach to list building.

I find there are certain units that are hard to kill:
- Land Raiders
- Terminators
- Mech spam

So I have a couple of units in my army that can kill those specific things.

For instances, Zoanthropes and Trygons can kill Land Raiders.

Lately there is a player who players IG with a big line of mech and rocket squads behind it. He slaughters me. Similar story with Tau and mass rail guns.

So my response will be to add some Fast Attack or Ymgarls to my list which will be able to strike at his troops in the back.

The way I view it is that I am ratcheting up my army to deal with stronger opponents.

If I go to a tournament I think this list would be OK because it can deal with a variety of common threats.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that if someone has a high national ranking then it's worthwhile to listen to what they have to say. not that they can't be wrong or anything like that of course.

Nah, you see, if someone has a high ranking or internet noriety they can use this position to sublty influence the meta. So they are, just, full of lies! Lies I say!!!

lol

Rankings HQ includes lots of small events which has significantly skewed their ranking system. To say someone is #3 who never actually won a big GT doesn't add up.

Will you people stop getting hung up on rankings and just actually see his list building tactics for what it is. It's solid

Even having a solid list doesn't mean you're right all the time. Same fallacy all over again.

Look, a doctor knows a lot more about diseases than your average Joe. But does that mean he's always right with his/her treatments and/or diagnosis? No. Doctors screw up all the time.


That is why one should never wield "I'm more experienced than you, therefore I am always right on the subject" argument. It will always be a fallacy.

camcam_HALO wrote:Will you people stop getting hung up on rankings and just actually see his list building tactics for what it is. It's solid

Which is due to a sharing of ideas by many people. Just like how he once naively claimed that Eavy Armour is the more efficient upgrade for Nobs instead of Cybork bodies, ignoring what everyone else has to say. Ask him again now and he ll tell you he was wrong :-)

which shows he is willing to admit he is wrong.

that alone makes his opinion worth looking at.

striderx wrote:

camcam_HALO wrote:Will you people stop getting hung up on rankings and just actually see his list building tactics for what it is. It's solid

Which is due to a sharing of ideas by many people. Just like how he once naively claimed that Eavy Armour is the more efficient upgrade for Nobs instead of Cybork bodies, ignoring what everyone else has to say. Ask him again now and he ll tell you he was wrong :-)

I guess maybe I am the only one that read the topic of this thread